Jackson molestation case: 5 previous accusations let in....

[Dr Mordrid]

Under California law the accusations made by 5 previous kids can now be submitted to the jury as evidence of "previous bad acts" similar to the current accusations;

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/28/jackson/index.html

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville agreed with prosecutors that the evidence is relevant to proving "an alleged pattern of grooming" young boys to abuse them.....

The previous five cases involved children ages 10 to 13

IMO MJ's toast.

Dr. Mordrid

[Kruzin]

Good.
I was worried the judge wouldn't let the previous allegations in.
Now hopefully this sicko whacko jacko can do the time he deserves.

I saw he was on Jesse Jackson's radio show yesterday, where he claimed there is a huge conspiracy against him, and compaired himself to other persecuted black people, in particular Nelson Mandella.

Yea....Whenever I think of Mandell, his suffering, fortitude, service to his country and people, I can't help but think 'wow, just like Michael Jackson'...

[Marshmallowman]

And going on the radio..against court/judge order. Definitetly toast

[Umfriend]

I still believe he is innocent. And I ain't no fan of him, so this should count.

[RichL]

I saw he was on Jesse Jackson's radio show yesterday, where he claimed there is a huge conspiracy against him, and compaired himself to other persecuted black people, in particular Nelson Mandella.

There's considerable debate on wether Michael Jackson is actually black

I haven't been following the case, but I'm always deeply suspicious of the validity of hyped-up media frenzy cases bought against the rich and famous.
MJ is a raving weirdo, and although you can never quite be sure what a raving weirdo has been doing, he doesnt strike me as the buggering little-boys-type of weirdo.

For the 'victims' sake, I hope I'm right.

[Gurm]

The big problem here is that while I agree with the judge that in MOST abuse cases prior accusations should be allowed in (for example in a domestic abuse case where the wife may have called the cops 10 times but each time failed to press charges or dropped them, but then finally she DOES go to court the jury ought to hear from the cops about her prior beatings) but in this case as the defense said the only "pattern" that would establish would be the pattern of greedy people to sue multimillionaires.

I think Jackson is a nutbag. I think he's a self-mutilating, plastic-surgery-addicted nutbag. A nutbag who hasn't matured past the age of 13.

NONETHELESS, I fail to see compelling evidence of abuse. Remember the "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing?

What drives me nuts is that Jackson will keep inviting kids over in spite of all this.

[Umfriend]

Moreover, Gurm, in the example, it's actually the alleging (sp?) party whose prior accusations would come into play. Not some third party as in this case, who did not pull through and certainly got nothing like a guilty verdict.

[Gurm]

Moreover, Gurm, in the example, it's actually the alleging (sp?) party whose prior accusations would come into play. Not some third party as in this case, who did not pull through and certainly got nothing like a guilty verdict.

Well, in spousal abuse cases yes. But they also have been letting in prior accusations in child molestation cases, figuring that if the same guy gets accused over and over of touching little children... well, maybe there's something to it, y'know?

But in this case it's DEFINITELY prejudicial. In most cases, the child has nothing to gain and EVERYTHING to lose (or at least perceives it as such) by naming his/her molester. In this case, we have a series of people who gained multi-million dollar settlements.

[Umfriend]

Well, I've been sorta following the case via CNN.com (and the incidental article in a Dutch paper of good standing, typically two days after having read the same stuff on CNN already ).

As things stand so far, I can't imagine MJ being convicted. Anyone know of a place where they have odds on this?

[schmosef]

Vegas